Will Congress reach an agreement before Jan. 1 to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff’?

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

If only the other 49 states were as smart as we Alaskans are and would have voted as this poll shows smart people are voting and knowing whats coming down. No matter which way this January 1, 2013 cliff thing goes, even if they supposedly avert the fiscal cliff, we are going down as a nation and thats exactly what Obama was hearlded as the messiah, chosen one that would bring us to. Some times you get what you want, even if you don't realize what you want is very bad for you, like this chosen one is. Stock up while you can as troubles coming no matter what Jan. 1, 2013 brings and we will all have to pay more in taxes and trying to survive as jobs become even less available and more hopelessness comes crashing down on ALL of America and even the world.

Congress' only concern is how to point the fingers at the other party. More time is (will) be spent on this aspect than will ever be spent on the problem itself. Bottom line, taxes will go up, the amounts and rates being thrown around conveniently do not mention that married couples incomes will be added together (this will also include savings set aside for retirement) and will suddenly become just over the "tax" rate line. There is no other concern by our "leaders" then to get those who work for their living than to give that income to those who won't work... seems there is always an excuse. The rich are rich because they realize that the purpose of money is to put it back in circulation, not hold on to it. Think about it.

Maybe we have the basics of a democratic republic wrong. Please pardon the cut and paste. I've included the link to this short article at the end of this post:

"Hamilton was skeptical of the ability of politicians facing frequent elections to make the long-term sacrifices necessary for the common good. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton went so far as to suggest that the President and senators serve life terms, insulating them from popular demands for shortsighted policies, like spending today and paying tomorrow. Barring that, he wanted administrative officials in the executive to serve for lengthy periods, across presidencies, so that they could bring a long-term perspective to their jobs. For the most part, these ideas were rejected, in favor of a more democratic and accountable system of governance."

In my opinion, our elected congress has more focus on the next election cycle than they do the current fiscal fiasco. One may want to point at one party or the other, but that just doesn't wash! Both parties share quite equally in their inability to reign in government. For this reason, it is very likely that the fiscal cliff will indeed come to an unwanted head.

"I don't want to abolish government! I just want to shrink it down to a size where it can be drown in a bathtub." -Grover Norquist-

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
- H.L. MENCKEN -

On your post I will agree with the motivation of politicians on the hill. However, I have found nothing within any proposed legislation that would tax incomes any differently in respect to status (married filing separately or jointly) than that which is current. There have been ideas floated on pension taxes and retirement distribution tax, but neither has had much traction in either the house or the senate.
My belief is, that we have dug ourselves in so deep and eliminated so much of the middle class (historically the revenue generators) over the last 40 years that the Federal government has little choice but to increase revenue through all sources: Increasing income taxes on the wealthiest 2%, reducing discretionary spending, eliminating tax loop holes and restructuring the tax code to include not only higher tax rates on the richest citizens, but also a progressive tax rate on those of lower means. We don't have to tax the poverty stricken, but those of incomes of $23K should pay at a rate of at least 5%. No body rides for free! In addition to this, reduce corporate tax rates to encourage investment and employment. Re-structure "free" trade agreements into "fair" trade agreements by raising our duties and tariffs to a compatible and competitive level. That in itself would reduce the bleeding of jobs to foreign countries. Increase spending on infrastructure rehabilitation and improvement and eliminate or combine Federal programs and offices that perform unnecessary or redundant services. And finally ... hold Washington accountable! Become an informed electorate!

The Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and extended for two years at the end of 2010 are set to expire. Cost: $254 billion.
Temporary tax breaks that were part of Obama’s stimulus law and extended at the end of 2010 will expire. Cost: $27 billion.
Congress has yet to act on short-term tax breaks, mostly for businesses, that are routinely extended but have yet to be approved. Cost: $75 billion.
A temporary payroll tax cut enacted for 2011 was extended through 2012, but is now set to expire at the end of this year. Cost: $115 billion.
Tax increases contained in the Affordable Care Act on upper-income taxpayers will go into effect: a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income, 0.9 percent increase in Medicare payroll taxes and a higher income threshold for deducting medical expenses. Cost: $24 billion.
The Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to make sure wealthy Americans pay a minimum tax, was never indexed to inflation on a permanent basis. As a result, Congress must fix this problem — as it has every year since 2001 — or 28 million more taxpayers will pay higher taxes. Cost: $40 billion.

If all that happened, taxes would increase an average of $3,466 per household, according to the Tax Policy Center. Middle-income households — those earning nearly $40,000 to about $64,500 a year — would see an average increase of $1,984.

Spending is the problem and no amount of taxes are gonna resolve the mess we are in as a Nation or Society. Even a child can see that when there is no money in the piggy bank that you can't buy things you want, but grownups can't see this or don't really care.
Taxes will rise on everyone and every thing in 2013 and even go back to 2012 taxes and only cause the Desolation thats desired by the ObamaNation and his Global Socialist planners for just this case and the need for a OWO.
We will never recover from what our evil desires for Free stuff has cost us all. We must fall or default on the monies we owe before any thing differant can start and this is not a good plan of attack against our spending and borrowing lust for more stuff. We are in troubles deep, ALL OF US, RICH OR POOR.

richvh
So if the rich understand the circulation concept, why are they fighting it?!! Those that refuse to work, the so-called "takers", aren't hanging onto any money they get. It goes right back into circulation. So if there's a circulation problem, which I totally agree there is, Where's the real problem? Something else to think about. M Schrag

Dont have the time or inclination to explain the highly successfull means of success we call capitalism. The more government removes from circulation by means of taxes, the less there will be for business development. The less business, the fewer jobs. The fewer the jobs, the faster the death spiral of the US will become. Welfare is not an entitlement. Government must be reduced to the levels of service as described in the constitution. Welfare has become a lifestyle that has to stop. It's time has ended. Those who are successfull should not be penalized for there success. Forcing those who work harder to pay more than there fair share is wrong.

Capitalism did not cause the Great Depression, the 1980’s Savings & Loan debacle, or our present economic meltdown. Bad government regulatory, fiscal and monetary policies created those events.
In the same token, capitalism didn’t create the greatest economy and the most powerful country the world has ever known. Good regulatory, fiscal and monetary government policies did.

I somewhat agree with you Rick. However, government must be funded and revenue through direct personal income taxation is one of the ways of receiving that revenue. My personal thought is a progressive tax that is expanded. The more you make, the greater the percentage one pays.

The government we support, regulates capitalism. We are all recipients of those guidelines and we should all pay a proportional slice of the proverbial pie. Unfettered Capitalism is not the answer to our troubles, but will only add to the problems.

Through policies of the last 30 years, two classes have shrunk dramatically; The upper class and the middle class, however, the impoverished have grown. Most of that shift started with Reagan's version of of top down economics and while the upper class has shrunk the wealth it has amassed in the same time has risen 800%. The shrinking middle class has seen it's wealth shrink by 36% in the same period.

Your comparison of JFK economic policy and Ronald Reagan tax policy is devoid of one thing... circumstances! JFK advocated for bringing tax rates down after WWll. In December 1962 he said: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking."

The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate?

Now before everyone starts screaming, I am not promoting a 65% marginal tax rate. I am however, suggesting a more progressive tax that captures some of the earners who now have no tax burden and at the same time raise taxes on those that are more capable of paying, reduce spending on defense, social security, welfare, farm subsidies and a host of other broad and expensive government spending programs.

rick
taxes are one of the ways of circulating money. Sam alludes to the failure of supply side economics that this country has been following the past forty odd years, and he's right. I would argue that the progressive income tax is one of the things that has made this country an economic powerhouse. Forget about the words fairness or equality, the important word is balance. Too high a tax rate discourages investment, but too low is also problematic. What did the early 2000s' tax cuts really do for us? Wall Street boomed, not so main street. If that money had been invested in updating the ageing infrastructure in this country we'd be in a much better position globally. We're like an ageing factory which can only be competitive by cutting it's labor costs, which starts another downward spiral. The job creaters in this country aren't the wealthy investors as much as all consumers (accounting for 70some % of economic activity in this country). We need more money out on main street and it's not going to happen through supply side economics. I'm not sure how "hard work" is defined these days, but unfortunately I think it has less and less to do with success. Although Bernie Madoff worked very hard at cheating people out of their money and he was wildly successful!! Keep thinking. M Schrag